Iowa, with a median LSAT of 161, is the 26th ranked school in the country. It is a fine school, and has been around for a long time.

Colorado, ranked 38th, and SMU, ranked 48th, both have median LSATs at 164. They are both fine schools, they have both been around for a long time, and the kids are generally smarter here than at Iowa (LSAT is an accepted aptitude test).

So why don't the rankings reflect that? Because Iowa is a Big Ten school, and has a great football team.

Something like 1/3 or 40% of USNWR law school rankings are determined from peer reviews. They ask some old judge somewhere, hey what is a better school, the University of Denver or Iowa? He has never watched collegiate ice hockey, so he says, Iowa of course.

Now many of you might say well hey, Iowa is a better school. Honestly I'm not sure, because it really depends on how you define your terms. Iowa does have better job placement and the students in Iowa are generally smarter (161 vs 159), but DU has terrific professors and a great programs just like Iowa.

Both schools are great. Iowa has better job placement because it has a great football team, so people have heard of it. But that is only something you have to consider if you may want to move around a lot, and think that Iowa will jump off the resume because of the name recognition. The truth is that it will help, marginally, but you really get jobs because of how well you network and how advanced your interpersonal skills are (and that goes for getting interviews and getting jobs).

Really, Iowa may be a better school than Denver, but it would not be way better like the rankings suggest.

Now, what people on this board don’t talk much about is that job placement stats are screwy in one important way. If you really dig deep, you will find that LSAT is a predictor for salary too, whether you went to DU or, say, the University of Colorado, ranked 40 spots above. You hear a lot of: No, I will go to CU because the job statistics are better. They are better, because the students are better, but if you went to CU and finished say, top 40% in your class, you would not have finished top 40% at DU. You would have finished top 10%, and gotten the same job (or potentially a better job if doing well at LS gave you a needed confidence boost).

Iowa, with a median LSAT of 161, is the 26th ranked school in the country. It is a fine school, and has been around for a long time.

Colorado, ranked 38th, and SMU, ranked 48th, both have median LSATs at 164. They are both fine schools, they have both been around for a long time, and the kids are generally smarter here than at Iowa (LSAT is an accepted aptitude test).

So why don't the rankings reflect that? Because Iowa is a Big Ten school, and has a great football team.

Something like 1/3 or 40% of USNWR law school rankings are determined from peer reviews. They ask some old judge somewhere, hey what is a better school, the University of Denver or Iowa? He has never watched collegiate ice hockey, so he says, Iowa of course.

Now many of you might say well hey, Iowa is a better school. Honestly I'm not sure, because it really depends on how you define your terms. Iowa does have better job placement and the students in Iowa are generally smarter (161 vs 159), but DU has terrific professors and a great programs just like Iowa.

Both schools are great. Iowa has better job placement because it has a great football team, so people have heard of it. But that is only something you have to consider if you may want to move around a lot, and think that Iowa will jump off the resume because of the name recognition. The truth is that it will help, marginally, but you really get jobs because of how well you network and how advanced your interpersonal skills are (and that goes for getting interviews and getting jobs).

Really, Iowa may be a better school than Denver, but it would not be way better like the rankings suggest.

Now, what people on this board don’t talk much about is that job placement stats are screwy in one important way. If you really dig deep, you will find that LSAT is a predictor for salary too, whether you went to DU or, say, the University of Colorado, ranked 40 spots above. You hear a lot of: No, I will go to CU because the job statistics are better. They are better, because the students are better, but if you went to CU and finished say, top 40% in your class, you would not have finished top 40% at DU. You would have finished top 10%, and gotten the same job (or potentially a better job if doing well at LS gave you a needed confidence boost).

Do you have a question or is this just a general statement you wanted to share.

mrwarre85 wrote: If you really dig deep, you will find that LSAT is a predictor for salary too, whether you went to DU or, say, the University of Colorado, ranked 40 spots above.

Edit: Redacted

• Weighted LSAT (2,439.996) – For each additional point scored on the LSAT, the starting salary increases by $2,439.996, ceteris paribus.

Well it was significant at the 10% level of significance. I don't like the 10% level of significance but w/e. I wounder how it would change if I included regions as dummy variables and raw USNWR score.

Stanford, with a median LSAT of 170, is the 3rd ranked school in the country. It is a fine school, and has been around for a long time.

Georgetown, ranked 14th, and Northwestern, ranked 11th, both have median LSATs at 170. They are both fine schools, they have both been around for a long time, and the kids are generally about as smart here as at Stanford (LSAT is an accepted aptitude test).

So why don't the rankings reflect that? Because Stanford is a Pac Ten school, and has a great football team.

Something like 1/3 or 40% of USNWR law school rankings are determined from peer reviews. They ask some old judge somewhere, hey what is a better school, the Northwestern or Stanford? He doesn't know much about the Midwest, so he says, Stanford of course.

Now many of you might say well hey, Stanford is a better school. Honestly I'm not sure, because it really depends on how you define your terms. Stanford does have better job placement and the students in Stanford are generally smarter, but NU has terrific professors and a great programs just like Stanford.

Both schools are great. Stanford has better job placement because it has a great football team, so people have heard of it. But that is only something you have to consider if you may want to move around a lot, and think that Stanford will jump off the resume because of the name recognition. The truth is that it will help, marginally, but you really get jobs because of how well you network and how advanced your interpersonal skills are (and that goes for getting interviews and getting jobs).

Really, Stanford may be a better school than Georgetown or NU, but it would not be way better like the rankings suggest.

Now, what people on this board don’t talk much about is that job placement stats are screwy in one important way. If you really dig deep, you will find that LSAT is a predictor for salary too, whether you went to Stanford or, say, the GULC, ranked 11 spots above. You hear a lot of: No, I will go to Stanford because the job statistics are better. They are better, because the students are better, but if you went to Stanford and finished say, top 40% in your class, you would not have finished top 40% at NU. You would have finished top 10%, and gotten the same job (or potentially a better job if doing well at LS gave you a needed confidence boost).

Last edited by UnitarySpace on Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Iowa, with a median LSAT of 161, is the 26th ranked school in the country. It is a fine school, and has been around for a long time.

Colorado, ranked 38th, and SMU, ranked 48th, both have median LSATs at 164. They are both fine schools, they have both been around for a long time, and the kids are generally smarter here than at Iowa (LSAT is an accepted aptitude test).

So why don't the rankings reflect that? Because Iowa is a Big Ten school, and has a great football team.

Something like 1/3 or 40% of USNWR law school rankings are determined from peer reviews. They ask some old judge somewhere, hey what is a better school, the University of Denver or Iowa? He has never watched collegiate ice hockey, so he says, Iowa of course.

Now many of you might say well hey, Iowa is a better school. Honestly I'm not sure, because it really depends on how you define your terms. Iowa does have better job placement and the students in Iowa are generally smarter (161 vs 159), but DU has terrific professors and a great programs just like Iowa.

Both schools are great. Iowa has better job placement because it has a great football team, so people have heard of it. But that is only something you have to consider if you may want to move around a lot, and think that Iowa will jump off the resume because of the name recognition. The truth is that it will help, marginally, but you really get jobs because of how well you network and how advanced your interpersonal skills are (and that goes for getting interviews and getting jobs).

Really, Iowa may be a better school than Denver, but it would not be way better like the rankings suggest.

Now, what people on this board don’t talk much about is that job placement stats are screwy in one important way. If you really dig deep, you will find that LSAT is a predictor for salary too, whether you went to DU or, say, the University of Colorado, ranked 40 spots above. You hear a lot of: No, I will go to CU because the job statistics are better. They are better, because the students are better, but if you went to CU and finished say, top 40% in your class, you would not have finished top 40% at DU. You would have finished top 10%, and gotten the same job (or potentially a better job if doing well at LS gave you a needed confidence boost).

Do you have a question or is this just a general statement you wanted to share.

Stanford, with a median LSAT of 170, is the 3rd ranked school in the country. It is a fine school, and has been around for a long time.

Georgetown, ranked 14th, and Northwestern, ranked 11th, both have median LSATs at 170. They are both fine schools, they have both been around for a long time, and the kids are generally about as smart here as at Stanford (LSAT is an accepted aptitude test).

So why don't the rankings reflect that? Because Stanford is a Pac Ten school, and has a great football team.

Something like 1/3 or 40% of USNWR law school rankings are determined from peer reviews. They ask some old judge somewhere, hey what is a better school, the Northwestern or Stanford? He doesn't know much about the Midwest, so he says, Stanford of course.

Now many of you might say well hey, Stanford is a better school. Honestly I'm not sure, because it really depends on how you define your terms. Stanford does have better job placement and the students in Stanford are generally smarter, but NU has terrific professors and a great programs just like Stanford.

Both schools are great. Stanford has better job placement because it has a great football team, so people have heard of it. But that is only something you have to consider if you may want to move around a lot, and think that Stanford will jump off the resume because of the name recognition. The truth is that it will help, marginally, but you really get jobs because of how well you network and how advanced your interpersonal skills are (and that goes for getting interviews and getting jobs).

Really, Stanford may be a better school than Georgetown or NU, but it would not be way better like the rankings suggest.

Now, what people on this board don’t talk much about is that job placement stats are screwy in one important way. If you really dig deep, you will find that LSAT is a predictor for salary too, whether you went to Stanford or, say, the GULC, ranked 11 spots above. You hear a lot of: No, I will go to Stanford because the job statistics are better. They are better, because the students are better, but if you went to Stanford and finished say, top 40% in your class, you would not have finished top 40% at NU. You would have finished top 10%, and gotten the same job (or potentially a better job if doing well at LS gave you a needed confidence boost).

The football thing was just an example. You miss my point. Stanford has name recognition too (and is also an incredible school). There are other ways to get your name out, but the football team is honestly the best way. Just look at all the Big 10 law schools and the schools right next to them in the rankings. Minus Michigan/Minn they are overrated.

EDIT- Oh wait Stanford does have a good football team. I don't keep up. So yes, I agree with you.

mrwarre85 wrote:The football thing was just an example. You miss my point. Stanford has name recognition too (and is also an incredible school). There are other ways to get your name out, but the football team is honestly the best way. Just look at all the Big 10 law schools and the schools right next to them in the rankings. Minus Michigan/Minn they are overrated.

mrwarre85 wrote:The football thing was just an example. You miss my point. Stanford has name recognition too (and is also an incredible school). There are other ways to get your name out, but the football team is honestly the best way. Just look at all the Big 10 law schools and the schools right next to them in the rankings. Minus Michigan/Minn they are overrated.

Northwestern? Illinois?

My fault. Those schools attract top students, just like their ranking would suggest. You are correct. Shouldn't have left them out.

mrwarre85 wrote: If you really dig deep, you will find that LSAT is a predictor for salary too, whether you went to DU or, say, the University of Colorado, ranked 40 spots above.

Edit: Redacted

• Weighted LSAT (2,439.996) – For each additional point scored on the LSAT, the starting salary increases by $2,439.996, ceteris paribus.

Well it was significant at the 10% level of significance. I don't like the 10% level of significance but w/e. I wounder how it would change if I included regions as dummy variables and raw USNWR score.

Iowa may have better job placement accross regions, yes. I guess my point is, don't credit the professors, credit the football team/alumni/name rec. When this is properly addressed, many might decide to save money and go to a lesser ranked school where they can get the exact same education.

If you're trying to base your decision to go to U Colorado or U Iowa based on USNWR rankings, you've got bigger problems. Once you get out of the top 6 your school's region becomes a factor. Obviously top 14 schools have a broader regional reach than, say, a tier two, but you can expect a university of Michigan grad to have better chances at a Chicago firm than a UVA grad. If you want to work in Denver, go to U Colorodo. If you want to work in Des Moines, go to U Iowa. If you want to work in NYC for a Vault 100 firm and think that either of those schools affords you a meaningful chance, you need to reevaluate your situation.

Where are people getting their information about what students are generally as smart as other students.

The best support you could find for that is the average GPA and average LSAT, but that alone obviously isn't enough to declare that students are comparatively smart... whatever. this thread is ridiculous.

Ostrizr316 wrote:If you're trying to base your decision to go to U Colorado or U Iowa based on USNWR rankings, you've got bigger problems. Once you get out of the top 6 your school's region becomes a factor. Obviously top 14 schools have a broader regional reach than, say, a tier two, but you can expect a university of Michigan grad to have better chances at a Chicago firm than a UVA grad. If you want to work in Denver, go to U Colorodo. If you want to work in Des Moines, go to U Iowa. If you want to work in NYC for a Vault 100 firm and think that either of those schools affords you a meaningful chance, you need to reevaluate your situation.

To the OP, read the bolded above.

Rankings mean absolutely nothing outside of, Id say, 10 or so schools in the country. Rankings are very misleading. A school ranked at 29 isnt automatically better than a school ranked 35th. It all comes down to regional strength. Most schools outside of HYS and a few other in the top 14 are primarily regional. So, forget about rankings and look at employment data. Look at cost. Look at bar passage rates.

To be clear, you're talking about the same Iowa school that places 3/4 of it's class into the DOMINANT legal field known as the state of Iowa, right? Yeah, sounds like that Big Ten football reputation is allowing those Iowa grads to get jobs all over the place!

You're excluding a lot of factors in your "analysis." One major one is that up until 1995, US News only ranked the top 25 schools in the country. Iowa debuted on the 1991 list at number 19. It logically follows that it would be held in higher regard than other schools that were excluded from that list in the minds of the raters, who've been around much longer than you and I. "The evil you know is always better than the one you don't."

Also, you 0Ls kill me with this idea that X rank at one school is equal to X rank at another. Additionally, this is just a stupid argument to even concern yourself with. Go to DU or Colorado if you want to work in Colorado, the rankings shouldn't even come into play if you aren't talking about the ten or so most prestigious schools in the country.

Last edited by Aqualibrium on Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Ostrizr316 wrote:If you're trying to base your decision to go to U Colorado or U Iowa based on USNWR rankings, you've got bigger problems. Once you get out of the top 6 your school's region becomes a factor. Obviously top 14 schools have a broader regional reach than, say, a tier two, but you can expect a university of Michigan grad to have better chances at a Chicago firm than a UVA grad. If you want to work in Denver, go to U Colorodo. If you want to work in Des Moines, go to U Iowa. If you want to work in NYC for a Vault 100 firm and think that either of those schools affords you a meaningful chance, you need to reevaluate your situation.

To the OP, read the bolded above.

Rankings mean absolutely nothing outside of, Id say, 10 or so schools in the country. Rankings are very misleading. A school ranked at 29 isnt automatically better than a school ranked 35th. It all comes down to regional strength. Most schools outside of HYS and a few other in the top 14 are primarily regional. So, forget about rankings and look at employment data. Look at cost. Look at bar passage rates.

To you,

I agree with you. The post doesn't pose a question, but does examine why you are correct.

s0ph1e2007 wrote:Where are people getting their information about what students are generally as smart as other students.

The best support you could find for that is the average GPA and average LSAT, but that alone obviously isn't enough to declare that students are comparatively smart... whatever. this thread is ridiculous.

If you get a 95% on the LSAT, they let you in MENSA. It is an accepted aptitude test.

FuManChusco wrote:I can't be the only person that thinks OP is trying to justify his decision to go to Denver, can I?

Doing so outloud. They gave me a full scholly. It did get me thinking of this topic-- which has nothing to do with me.

Sounds like it doesn't having anything to do with you.

If you want to go to Denver on your big scholly, go for it. But that doesn't mean it isn't outclassed by a lot of other schools. $105,000 is a lot of money and nobody could fault you for going that route. Congrats on that, btw!

Aqualibrium wrote:You're excluding a lot of factors in your "analysis." One major one is that up until 1995, US News only ranked the top 25 schools in the country. Iowa debuted on the 1991 list at number 19. It logically follows that it would be held in higher regard than other schools that were excluded from that list in the minds of the raters, who've been around much longer than you and I. "The evil you know is always better than the one you don't."

Also, you 0Ls kill me with this idea that X rank at one school is equal to X rank at another. Additionally, this is just a stupid argument to even concern yourself with. Go to DU or Colorado if you want to work in Colorado, the rankings shouldn't even come into play if you aren't talking about the ten or so most prestigious schools in the country.

Certainly factors could be added to make this, and really anything, more complex. The peer review thing is complained loudly by schools like Stetson (great school, no chance to move up). It isn't talked a lot about. It is also not neccesarilly a bad thing, as perception is reality and having a T-14 on your resume will get you interviews that University of Colorado will want. This could be huge if you wanted to move frequently, working all over the country.

Aqualibrium wrote:You're excluding a lot of factors in your "analysis." One major one is that up until 1995, US News only ranked the top 25 schools in the country. Iowa debuted on the 1991 list at number 19. It logically follows that it would be held in higher regard than other schools that were excluded from that list in the minds of the raters, who've been around much longer than you and I. "The evil you know is always better than the one you don't."

Also, you 0Ls kill me with this idea that X rank at one school is equal to X rank at another. Additionally, this is just a stupid argument to even concern yourself with. Go to DU or Colorado if you want to work in Colorado, the rankings shouldn't even come into play if you aren't talking about the ten or so most prestigious schools in the country.

Certainly factors could be added to make this, and really anything, more complex. The peer review thing is complained loudly by schools like Stetson (great school, no chance to move up). It isn't talked a lot about. It is also not neccesarilly a bad thing, as perception is reality and having a T-14 on your resume will get you interviews that University of Colorado will want. This could be huge if you wanted to move frequently, working all over the country.

Good point on the initial rankings by the way.

In fairness, peer review rankings reflect how a lot of legal hiring works. They hire from schools they went to, or partners went to, or whatever the case may be. It works in a similar way. Therefore, since obtaining a job is a goal of most law school grads, it is not at all inconsistent to use this as a measure for a ranking.

mrwarre85 wrote:The football thing was just an example. You miss my point. Stanford has name recognition too (and is also an incredible school). There are other ways to get your name out, but the football team is honestly the best way. Just look at all the Big 10 law schools and the schools right next to them in the rankings. Minus Michigan/Minn they are overrated.

EDIT- Oh wait Stanford does have a good football team. I don't keep up. So yes, I agree with you.

I can't help but think that your argument about football teams is total crap. Look at Oregon's football team (ranked 2nd). Now look at their law school (ranked 80th). The University of Chicago doesn't even have a football team... why are they ranked so highly (note: none of the "old judges" surveyed by USNWR are likely to remember when U Chicago played college football).